Friday, December 31, 2010

"The Internet Is Here" article about Project Chanology

A challenger appears to my article on Project Chanology ( that is newer and fresher!


What makes Chanology so compelling is ultimately not why they protest, but rather how they protest. The combination of culture, memetic information, humor, and real world activism defied both reprisal from the Church of Scientology and the typical modes of activism employed by social movements. Chanology provides an exciting new model of social movement organization as well as a fascinating fusion of online and offline cultures. The skillful integration of online communications technologies and the memetic grounding of Chanology have made it particularly well suited to a world in which the divisions between online and offline are increasingly ephemeral. The ability of Anonymous to successfully engage in action against a much more powerful organization in the Church of Scientology while managing to remain anonymous and avoid retaliation should be of great interest to those concerned with the ability of disempowered groups to mount meaningful resistance against more powerful groups."

Is Wikileaks a Collective Action?

I don't think Wikileaks is exactly an Internet collective action. But it is very loose-knit and relies on volunteers around the world to feed it information.

Another interesting aspect is noted by Clay Shirky, at

"This is what is freaking people in the US government out — not that the law has changed, but that the world has, and the industrial era law, applied to internet-era publishing, might allow for media outlets which exhibit no self-restraint around national sensitivities, because they are run by people without any loyalty to — or, more importantly, need of — national affiliation to do their jobs."

Shirky's main point in this article is that Wikileaks is not bound to a country, and therefore has no restraints normally applicable to a particular nation. The Pentagon Papers case, which is probably the best precedent for Wikileaks, is a U.S. national case. Wikileaks has no connection nor allegiance to any country. Even Julian Assange has almost no connection to one country, other than his history and his passport. He seems to have no particular home other than airports.

So when an Internet collective Action that is done globally commits some action that might be seen as breaking a law in one particular country, is THAT country able to go after the perpetrators of that action, if they can be identified? Interesting stuff.


I don't know who these people are, but I like the idea of making Internet Collective Action even easier!